JOYSO

JOYSO suggests a hybrid design for token trading, combining a fast and fully featured centralized exchange with the advantages of a decentralized exchange - improved security and privacy.

About JOYSO

JOYSO is a hybrid exchange with decentralized access and centralized order management. JOYSO records off-chain transactions and matches buyers and sellers using a proprietary matching engine. Matched orders will then be combined into a single transaction (reducing gas fees) and sent to the blockchain where the transaction can take place. JOYSO aims to compete with other exchanges by providing “fast processing and one-to-many matches” with its utilization of a centralized order book.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

JOYSO aims to compete against centralized exchanges by utilizing an off-chain order book which is matched using JOYSO’s order matching engine. It is stated that the product is currently in alpha and that a beta release is scheduled for June 2018. JOYSO discusses its competition, many of which do not use a centralized order book. One particular competitor, IDEX, also uses a centralized order book, but JOYSO does not thoroughly compare the two platforms. JOYSO states that IDEX lacks the “sophisticated matching mechanisms that JOYSO employs”, however the detail of the matching mechanism is not discussed in detail in the whitepaper. Also, it is stated that since JOYSO combines orders into a single transaction, “gas fees will be considerably lower” for JOYSO users. However thorough quantitative assessment of transaction fees and gas fee differences are not discussed.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

JOY is an ERC20 compliant token and can be used on the JOYSO exchange in order to reduce transaction fees by 50%. The need to create a custom token is primarily to generate funding for the centralized matching service. Hence, there is minimal innovative use of blockchain technology.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.0
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 38 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with low levels of detail. The most critical aspect of the platform is the matching algorithm that allows for a centralized off-chain order book, but the specific details of this matching engine are not discussed, and the code is not open source. Although it is not a requirement for the matching engine to be open source, it would be desirable, and if chosen to be proprietary, JOYSO could have included more quantitative information about the engine’s performance. The business plan is presented in moderate detail; JOYSO discusses its competitors in the whitepaper and how its service compares, as well as its marketing plan and business model. The business model, which primarily consists of charging transaction fees, is discussed in specific quantitative terms.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.4
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from September 2017 to September 2019. There are few technologically focused milestones, and the milestones presented are mostly goals which have already been achieved (conceptualization, research, website creation, ICO). A brief description is provided for each milestone. After launching JOYSO on the Ethereum MainNet in May 2018, subsequent milestones are focused on increasing trading volume.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

1.6
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section but it is stated in the FAQ section of the website that JOY tokens are not to be considered securities. Also in the FAQ section, JOYSO attempts to address a question regarding compliance and states that “there is a risk that in some jurisdictions that the JOY Token and related digital assets may be deemed by regulators to be a security, or that it may be judged to be a security in the future”. JOYSO is correct with this statement but does not provide details as to their strategy to ensure that compliance is assured. Residents from the Unites States and China will not be able to participate in the token sale.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

The team of 16 individuals are listed on the JOYSO website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. There is a fair balance between business and technology oriented team members. The CTO has professional experience with other blockchain-related projects as a developer (Gcoin, DiQi). The CEO is also occupied as CEO of another blockchain related project (AlcheMiner).

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.4
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

The total number of JOY tokens is 200 million (50% is available for the token sale, 25% is for private placement, and 25% is for the JOYSO team). Vesting periods are not clearly presented. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (35% is for product development, 20% is for marketing, 10% is for team reward, 10% is for legal compliance, 20% is for the security bounty, and 15% is for operations). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 14,014 ETH, where 1 ETH = 10,000 JOY. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018.

Product

JOYSO aims to compete against centralized exchanges by utilizing an off-chain order book which is matched using JOYSO’s order matching engine. It is stated that the product is currently in alpha and that a beta release is scheduled for June 2018. JOYSO discusses its competition, many of which do not use a centralized order book. One particular competitor, IDEX, also uses a centralized order book, but JOYSO does not thoroughly compare the two platforms. JOYSO states that IDEX lacks the “sophisticated matching mechanisms that JOYSO employs”, however the detail of the matching mechanism is not discussed in detail in the whitepaper. Also, it is stated that since JOYSO combines orders into a single transaction, “gas fees will be considerably lower” for JOYSO users. However thorough quantitative assessment of transaction fees and gas fee differences are not discussed.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

3.0
N/A
3 - Prototype / MVP / alpha.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

3.0
N/A
3 - Some normal competition.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

JOY is an ERC20 compliant token and can be used on the JOYSO exchange in order to reduce transaction fees by 50%. The need to create a custom token is primarily to generate funding for the centralized matching service. Hence, there is minimal innovative use of blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some smart contract functionality.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or indeterminate.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

1.0
N/A
1 - None really, just fundraising.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Hybrid; decentralized as far as circumstances allow.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.8

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is 38 pages in length. The technology plan is presented with low levels of detail. The most critical aspect of the platform is the matching algorithm that allows for a centralized off-chain order book, but the specific details of this matching engine are not discussed, and the code is not open source. Although it is not a requirement for the matching engine to be open source, it would be desirable, and if chosen to be proprietary, JOYSO could have included more quantitative information about the engine’s performance. The business plan is presented in moderate detail; JOYSO discusses its competitors in the whitepaper and how its service compares, as well as its marketing plan and business model. The business model, which primarily consists of charging transaction fees, is discussed in specific quantitative terms.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

3.0
N/A
3 - Readable, takes some time.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

3.0
N/A
3 - Basic honesty with some hype.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Clear, well thought out, realistic.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

2.0
N/A
2 - Missing critical information.
Whitepaper Score:
3.0

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from September 2017 to September 2019. There are few technologically focused milestones, and the milestones presented are mostly goals which have already been achieved (conceptualization, research, website creation, ICO). A brief description is provided for each milestone. After launching JOYSO on the Ethereum MainNet in May 2018, subsequent milestones are focused on increasing trading volume.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

3.0
N/A
3 - An overall plan, major milestones stated.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.4

Compliance

The whitepaper does not contain a disclaimer section but it is stated in the FAQ section of the website that JOY tokens are not to be considered securities. Also in the FAQ section, JOYSO attempts to address a question regarding compliance and states that “there is a risk that in some jurisdictions that the JOY Token and related digital assets may be deemed by regulators to be a security, or that it may be judged to be a security in the future”. JOYSO is correct with this statement but does not provide details as to their strategy to ensure that compliance is assured. Residents from the Unites States and China will not be able to participate in the token sale.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

2.0
N/A
2 - Primarily, with few additional rights.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; ignored.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

1.0
N/A
1 - None available.
Compliance Score:
1.6

Company and Team

The team of 16 individuals are listed on the JOYSO website, along with their profile pictures, short descriptions and links to social media profiles. There is a fair balance between business and technology oriented team members. The CTO has professional experience with other blockchain-related projects as a developer (Gcoin, DiQi). The CEO is also occupied as CEO of another blockchain related project (AlcheMiner).

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

3.0
N/A
3 - Minimally sufficient.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

2.0
N/A
2 - Lacking in key areas.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

The total number of JOY tokens is 200 million (50% is available for the token sale, 25% is for private placement, and 25% is for the JOYSO team). Vesting periods are not clearly presented. The allocation of funds is described in moderate detail (35% is for product development, 20% is for marketing, 10% is for team reward, 10% is for legal compliance, 20% is for the security bounty, and 15% is for operations). The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is 14,014 ETH, where 1 ETH = 10,000 JOY. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

3.0
N/A
3 - Justifiable.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.4

Use this code to share the ratings on your website